Manu raju begins right now breaking News Welcome to inside politics. Im Manu Raju in for Dana Bash were following major Breaking News on multiple fronts. First moments ago, new York Citys mayor indicted prosecutors, just announced five pub, Federal Public Corruption charges against eric adams, being Bribery And Wire fraud and moments from now, new York Appeals court will hear arguments in Donald Trumps push to overturn a civil Fraud Judgment that could unravel his Business Empire and cost him happen 1 1 Billion and then theres hurricane helene, 86 Million people are on alert as it rapidly intensifies and officials warn of lifethreatening Storm Surges will bring you updates from our team on the ground its better. To hear later this hour from the Fema Director at the White House but i want to start with a High Stakes appeal setting for Donald Trump former president , Fighting A 454 Million fine after Judge Arthur engoron ruled that he carried out a yearslong scheme of inflating assets trumps lawyers say the decision is agreed in unconstitutional or the new York Attorney Generals Office argues, is backed by overwhelming evidence. So im lucky to be joined by my great journalists and lawyers whove been following Donald Trumps legal problems in this case over for many years. Now, former federal prosecutor, shan shan wu, cnns Laura Coates cnns paula reid, and cnns kristen holmes. Thank you all for joining me on this busy, busy News Hour. Lets start about this case just to remind viewers about what we expect to see here in just a matter of minutes, paula and the arguments that we expect to hear from both sides, attorneys for former President Trump are undertaking appeals against several, several civil Judgements Addition to his criminal conviction in new york with this specific fraud, this was a trial before a judge, not a jury, and it was really the most personal case for the former president that weve seen over the past few years, because this was about his empire, his business, not only its business, but also his family, his two adult sons, our bolt, also involved in this case. Trump attended much of this trial at harvard at day in and day out. He also testified during this case, even though he faces many civil and criminal cases this one really i think cut cut really to the heart for him because its about his identity as a successful businessman at here, this judge found that he was committing fraud, that he was really lying about his Net Worth, about the value of some of his properties. And of course, it was expected that they would appeal unclear though, if theyll be successful, just to remind viewers about the possible consequences for trump right now about this, in this new, new york civil Fraud Trial against him up to 454 Million in fine plus interests essentially growing substantially each day and longer this goes on, the longer he gets bigger, fine, he could get hit this is not overturned in addition to all the everything else, including the Threeyear Ban on top roles in europe businesses. Kristen holmes, you cover the Trump Campaign and trump is going to speak this afternoon. Hes not expected to be here, but this afternoon, what are you hearing about his mindset . Well, first of all, i was given take whether or not he was actually going to be here. There is a lot of interests from the former president and showing up today and listening to these oral arguments, something that he wanted to do and ultimately decided not to his campaign, decided that he wouldnt, but he is going to speak at 4 30 and you can expect to hear him talk about this. We have seen this time and time again when Donald Trump has these legal cases, particularly now that theyre kind of stretched out in terms of hearings, appeals, he then goes to the cameras kristen, i got to go to the hearing right now. Were taking it live. Lets listen in the law of the Case Doctrine last Year And Trump won at 2 17, 83rd page 611 this court held that no liability could be assigned for transactions that were completed prior to february do you worry of 2016 or 2014 for mr. Sauer, your that thats premised on the fact that the statements of financial conditions cannot give rise on their own to a new violation of 63, 12, right . That is correct. Then then why didnt we say that in the earlier decision on the motion to dismiss when were reviewing the motion to dismiss, i think thats what the phrase the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply to delay or extend limitations period means because that is the continuing wrong doctrine to say that like a 2017 or 2018 statement you know, as a new discrete wrong thats distinct from the original transaction that close way back in 2012, that just is the continuing wrong guy. I think it applies to ivanka trumps arguments that the on that appeal or to the Attorney Generals now discarded theory that there was somehow a large amorphous fraud that somehow told the Statute Limitations All The Way back to 2011, isnt that statement applicable to either of those two arguments made . On the motion to dismiss appeal. Your honor, if i understand the question, the dismissal of Ms Trump strongly supports our interpretation of the prior opinion because of course, the allegations with her in the complainant virtually identical to the allegations against the other individual talents. So if you look at the complaint, you see virtually identical claims and theories as to those two and once this court held, shes not covered by the Tolling Agreement, she was completely dismissed from the case. The same should apply to anyone who is not covered by the Tolling Agreement here. And i would emphasize further though, that theres really two errors here, because even if the continuing wrong doctrine did apply, it still doesnt allow the Trial Court to do what it did, which is to go way back in time to 2011 and 2012 when a Sign Log Ability and major consequences, huge financial consequences based on analysis that never looked at a 2017 or 2015 statements said what liability flows from just that statement that comes much later in the course of conduct and weapons which closed long ago. Exactly right, your honor. Again, this court addressed this squarely in henry decision, which is cited in trump won the Cw Capital Decision, which is cited in what trump won, what henry says is, even if you apply doctrine, it only applies to allow liability for statements within the limitations period, but thats not what the Trial Court did here. Thats not what the attorney Generals Office contended they said, oh, were going to apply the continuing wrong doctrine that contradicts trump won. So that was the first error, but then the second error is once weve done that, were going to pretend theres no statute of limitations at all, and were going to go all the way back in time and assign crippling financial liability for transactions concluded again in 2011 and 2012. So theres a direct contradiction a direct disregard of the prior this courts prior opinion. It becomes really clear, i think when you look at, for example, theres a citation of the inching Lung Decision by the Trial Court. The Trial Court says this shows this is a continuous series of wrongs each of which gives rise to its own liability when there was an opinion from this court three months earlier saying that continuing wrong doctrine does not apply, that makes it very again, shouldnt we have said or wouldnt we have said this statements of financial condition that fall within the limitations period dont give rise to 63, 12 claims. Should we just said that will say everyone a lot of time. I think its i think thats clearly what the continuing wrong doctrine means if you apply again the dismissal of miss trumps strongly supports that. But in any event, your honor, even if the court doesnt agree with that, theres still a massive violation of the continuing of the statute of limitations because again, under henry and versus bank of america, under the Cw Capital Decision the most the Trial Court could have done is looked at the 2017 statements and said what liability can i assess that . Can i oppose that . And that is not at all what happened in the Trial Court. There were just a complete disregard. A statue of limitations, and an analysis that again and again goes all the way back to 2012 even if we agree with you on the statute of limitations point that would not result in the complaint in its entirety being dismissed. It would still be several transactions that would be not not timebarred are timely so what is your response to or what is your strongest argument as to the for dismissal of those claims . Those eggs did not in timebarred clear. Therell be two of the ten that were charged in the complaint that weve identified that would only apply to those covered by the Tolling Agreement, mike, mr. Drop, if youre not covered by the toy agreement, its all gone. Essentially. But in answer to your honors question, we argue that there was a complete failure of proof on the critical element of Capacity Or Tendency to deceive, which is an element required of any 63, 12 of i can stop you there are you talking about a failure of proof at trial absolutely, your honor. As well as in Summary Judgment. So we raised okay. But cause of Action Number one, which is the fraud based claim under 63 12 liability on that was not tried. That was determined at Summary Judgment that is correct, your honor. Asked about yes. I dont believe we can look at the Trial Record to answer any questions about the sufficiency of cause of Action Number one based on fraud, dont we have to confine our review to the Summary Judgment motion record. Well, to the extent that the Trial Court in the final decision was repeatedly referring to reinforce its prior holding and Summary Judgment, yes. Now, our position, of course, is that the failure of proof is even more defined, even more clear when you look at the Summary Judgment record, for example, just a couple of citations to put this in context Summary Judgment Record Page 139, 65 of the record is a Deutsche Bank Witness uncontradicted saying if his Net Worth has been as low as 1 for example, he would have gotten exactly the same deal. It would have been exactly the same transaction thats uncontradicted. Its reinforced by the trial. But could it could the Trial Court have credited mr. Hayes statement hes also a Deutsche Bank employee, correct. And he said that if the facts were if the sfcs were incorrect then they didnt properly assess the risk on these loans nearly said that you say that in your brief, i believe he made a much more generic if you look at that particular citation, he made it much more generic contact that we want to make sure were being compensated for our risk. What is not, what is not disputed is the testimony that if the network had been as low what was 1 Billion. And again, this is the testimony of williams, if Net Worth has been as low as 1 Billion, the deal would have been exactly the same and so its astonishing if you look at, for example, page 18, 82 of the record, which is their schematic, at least nine times in their brief. They can see that President Trumps Net Worth range between on their view, 3,000,000,004. 7 billion dollars throughout this entire period, which is miles above, youre talking about. If youre talking about Summary Judgment, isnt it basic that you dont make Credibility Determinations on the motion . Absolutely. Correct, your honor. We havent repeated violation of that as we pointed out in our briefing, for example, theyre sort of astonishing Credibility Determinations to disregard unrebutted in the Summary Judgment record, Expert Testimony. So if you look at 79, 16, the Summary Judgment affidavits of bartov where he explains how all these representations, virtually everything they challenge is consistent with generally applicable Accounting Standards at their Gop Compliance statements. Thats unrebutted in the Summary Judgment it goes beyond merely being disputed and you couldnt decide it by a credibility determination. Theres really nothing to the contrary and again, these these errors are all reinforced at trials. We are challenging both of those and if you look particularly at professor bartov testimony, you have this clear explanation that all the things that they say are misleading are things that are specifically approved an asc to 70 for creating an issue of fact correct . Exactly. Right, your honor, thats exactly right, your honor. Thats just at the very least thats a disputed issue effect. It isnt just professor of our offers series. Theres professor flemings, theres a whole series of experts when you get to yes, your honour well, you finish that, but then i have a question for you about the scope of the statute. Go right ahead. Okay. Yeah. Know. So i just looking at the language of the statute, it says enacted to promote the Honesty And Integrity and commercial marketplace in new york by stopping fraud and illegal business so to accomplish this, the statute authorizes the Attorney General that whenever a Person Shell engaged in repeated fraudulent, i know that youre challenging that or illegal acts that they can bring such an action. So why isnt the language of the statute . Here referring to the repeated and fraudulent illegal acts or persistent fraud or legality. Why doesnt that just define the scope of the statute . Why do we need to go to Harm Or Threat of harm . Yes, your honor. So the standard is that this court held, for example, in General Electric, is there has to be a Capacity Or Tendency to deceive or atmosphere conducive to fraud. And what weve pointed out is that you have a situation where there were no victims, no complaints, no evidence of causation, materiality, or reliance. There were sophisticated it counterparties. You the understanding of the relevant marketplaces. This court said in the North Bank decision, understood that they would be doing their Due Diligence. They did do their own Due Diligence. The uncontradicted testimony in the Summary Judgment record is we everything we did was independent. We didnt rely on the numbers thats the williams testimony in the Summary Judgment record. Oh, that is evidence as as the for example, the Dominos Pizza decision that weve cited powerfully makes this point where all of that is lacking, all that is powerful evidence that there was no Capacity Or Tendency to see which ties into our point that every sort about the issue inches were exactly the same. Sorry, counsel, what about deterrence . In other words, The Ag would have the argument that maybe this, these deals went down fine as far as all the parties were concerned in these deals, but in the future, some deal might not go down well and someone would be harmed by that. And so we need to deter parties from im putting in fallacious statements of financial state. Good man, yes. Right. I just to answer that question, the Deterrence Interest goes entirely opposite direction where we have a situation where the Supreme Court disregarded on rebutted Expert Testimony that these are gap compliant. These are consistent with Accounting Standards which dont require perfection. Nobody. Attorney general points out that whether or not theyre consistent with gop principles, its the factual inaccuracies that are important so in other words, you might be following gaap principles, but if youre, if your data is terrible, then youre creating a fallacious Statement Respect to that completely disregards or at least misinterprets our Expert Testimony which look at what they say is factual data thats misinterpreted. For example, appraisals i mean, essentially its a pretty im the appraisal in your file. You got to rely on that. You cant rely on your own independent judgment. They say thats a factual inaccuracy. Gaps as the opposite, at least thats the unrebutted testimony. This Summary Judgment record. And i would direct the Court And Page 17916, the beginning of Professor Bartov Summary of opinions on that. I want to turn your attention to a different subject because your time Red Light is on i am trying to figure out about the valuation of mara lago i noticed that you are expert mr. Moons valued it at over 1 Billion he also said that if its present the hands of a new Owner Club memberships, 500 Cub Memberships could be sold generating 250 Million and generates revenue of over 50 Million a year in 2022 and 2023 and Supreme Court values it at 18 to 27 Million because of restrictions. You have anything to say about those restrictions taking it down in value to such an extent, those are i take two things in response to that. First, the Shubhin Affidavit directly addresses that that was improperly kind of disregard, says there are no restrictions on it he says there arent shubhin says there are no restrict. He says you have to interpret it. He says the Trial Court looks at one Document And Isolation that you have conservation. Mr. Shubhin says you got to look at all five documents included think the historical practice, there to understand what the actual policy hasnt. For example, they say he couldnt value it as a private residence, but he has been using as a private residence since 1995, continually is continuously to this day but the more fundamental point is that valuation where he relied on Tax Assessment illustrates a hazards to the marketplace as a whole here, from having the Supreme Court site, things like Chico Marx and footnote nine of the Summary Judgment decision. The i know it when i see it standard from obscenity law, from Justice Potter Stewart to decide whats a misrepresentation. These statements when you have Expert Testimony, unrebutted that says these are gap consistent. If we have a system where you can issue perfectly accounting clear, basically statements that comply with gap. And youre held well, we have another standard. I know it when i see it thats good. Thats bad.